The actress-artist is Jemima Kirke (of the HBO show "Girls"). The article is in the NYT.
From the comments (links added):
First Shia Labeouf tries to pass off the work of Dan Clowes as his own. Now Jemima Kirke is ever-so-earnestly describing how the friends she painted deeply inspired her "art" rather than the Alice Neel coffee table books she clearly cherishes and studies. There is something fundamentally wrong with this Napster generation. Just because you can play a passable cover of "Needle in the Hay" does not mean you ARE Elliott Smith or that you actually WROTE the song. Ms. Kirke's attempt to pass off her work as anything other than homage is reminiscent of a classic headline from The Onion: "Judge Awards Heather Mills Writing Credit On Eleanor Rigby."Many commenters carp about the similarity to the work of Alice Neel and some attack the Times for failing even to mention Neel. For contrast, when the NYT wrote about that painting George Bush did of himself in the bathtub, it did not fail to cite Pierre Bonnard — "Pierre Bonnard’s strangely chaste, luminous paintings of his wife reclining in a bathtub."
How do you feel about celebrity artists getting attention when lesser-known, better artists are ignored? Is it okay as long as any artists they steal from also get the press? Is it okay as long are there's no different treatment based on the politics of the celebrity artists? Or is it just all about the clicks and nothing here really matters?
Posts
21 comments:
"How do you feel about celebrity artists getting attention when lesser-known, better artists are ignored?"
Oh, I don't know, I guess I'm cool with it,…
[Snark]
I absolutely cannot stand it when artists talk about their art. It is inevitably a narcissistic pursuit. That goes for visual arts, acting writing, anything. A work is what it is. No amount of clarification or justification by the artist can improve it, only tear it down.
I think the attraction is that here is someone with more talent in two things that most of us can muster in one thing. It sparks our interest, perhaps by making us jealous. I remember when I learned that all the scenes of Geoffrey Rush playing the piano in "Shine" were actually Geoffrey Rush playing the piano. So playing the piano is his second best talent, and I'll never be that good at my best talent.
Of course the article is about people who aren't really that talented in their second thing, and perhaps not that talented at their first thing either. So maybe here, instead of invoking a sense of inferiority it invokes superiority: the rest of us, at least, aren't deceiving ourselves by having articles written about our pseudo-talents.
How do you feel about celebrity artists getting attention when lesser-known, better artists are ignored?
ALL artists who get attention are celebrity artists. Some are celebrities because they schmooze at the parties. Some are celebrities because they know other insiders. Or both. For some tiny few it's just random chance that they get noticed.
The art world is filled with better, lesser-known artists. It's the nature of the business.
I like having sex with people unlike me, specifically anyone who is midwestern, middle income and white, I deteste sexually. Sex with a white bores me terribly. I need and require brown/black ethnics. I give higher grades for those that speak little or no english or who talk like a major dumbass thug or "bawston" accent. I seriously have a chart detailing what I want and need sexually and then when I am on the make measure my victims based off my needs. It is essential that they dress "downtown, city" with exceptional shoes or tennies. If I sense they have been educated or have a southern or midwestern accent I deflate immediately and escape.
Last night, I seriously did a black guy with a Liberty University t-shirt on. His mom is a pastor at Liberty. We actually talked afterwards and he told me the south is going to change greatly in the next 20 years, after the oldies die off-totally Oprah I know. He said anyone under 40 has very different views than those in power politically. To make things even hotter, he was a Boston cop.
I had fucked in many fucked up scenarios, but that was the most fucked up....and I loved it. jerk off materials for months to come.
Anyone equal to me in terms of education, wealth, salary, home or car is a turnoff....except my brown husband, natch.
this is a true, actual, real story too.
I am always asking myself why does this turn me on? Do I need to be in the position of power and control? I need and demand to be worshiped (temporarily-like 15 minutes) but this isn't going to last because I am getting older...then what?
Death, i guess.
At my age, I am so grateful and appreciative of pulling in young, diverse, hot cock.
I could be a grossie 44 year old! but, based off my consquests, which is how I judge mself and my appeal, I am still swinging my pussy and it is getting eaten.
thank u god.
Well its not that good. She's not that famous. I think getting "clicks" is how people operate these days. Just the modern transition of "There's no such thing as bad publicity". Look at me
Many many guys have sucked my cock and then I said I am leaving before i climax.
I wonder how demoralizing that is?
When I button up my jeans and try to walk away some of them are actually clinging to my cock saying wait a little longer, let me finish u off. I am like no and walk fastly off.
I never had the fascination with the cock that many gay men have. I could take it or leave it. Chest, abs and arms are crucial though.
When I am doing them I also tell them I am straight and have a wife and kids.
What the fuck is that all about?
Lesser known artists deserve to be ignored.
The art's not getting the press. The celebrity is getting the press. Art doesn't get press anymore. In most cases, that's a good thing.
Like most people I imagine, I have a distaste for vacant narcissism whether someone claims to be an artist or a fry cook. As to the art itself, I'm less concerned about whether its derivative (some of my favorite books, TV shows, and music is highly derivative) and more concerned with whether or not the creator acknowledges its derivativeness.
Gay marriage has done wonders for Titus. He is a walking billboard to make it universal.
RISD alumni have been descending ever since Charlie Claverie became "Charles Rocket" and fired from Saturday Night Live. He should have remained lead singer & 2nd accordionist of The Fabulous Motels, Providence's best local band. That & driving in domilition derbys.
She is a completely derivative person, a creation of fashion and the fashionable. She was born to it, educated in it and is sustained by other derivatives. Greenwich Village, RISD, Pop Culture Media.
Plus she has chosen to imitate art that presents women in an unattractive fashion.
What is that all about?
I have no idea who anyone named here is, has done, or why I should care or have any interest in. I am happier this way.
She names Manet and Freud as influences, but does not mention Alice Neel, who, as already stated, is her most obvious influence. Does she think this will hide the obvious similarity of her work to Neel's? Is it possible she really doesn't see Neel as an influence--though her work looks like it was copied after Neel?
Lucien Freud's own early work was clumsy and amateurish, if not, as with Kirke's paintings, copied from the work of another. Yet, he developed over time and with persistence into one of the most singular figurative painters of the last half century, (along with Bacon and Giacometti, the latter of whom is my own favorite). Perhaps Kirke will likewise continue to develop in skill and maturity and her own work will become uniquely hers and possibly worth attending to for its own merits. It's too soon to know.
It's about making money. She's sort of famous and pretty and her work isn't total shit. There's art and then there's making money from it. You have gallery owners, etc. who are profit minded. same with music, publishing, etc. The artists are only a part of the commerce of art.
Are artists not supposed to have influences now? The Neel influence is quite obvious, but they're still original pieces of art.
If it's a valid style of painting, it can survive having more than one practitioner. Otherwise, it's just ugly novelty art.
Jemima Kirke is a product of Bad Company.
trust a modern "artist" to make the human body look ugly. good god, why do they all have to try to copy Latrec's garish palette?
Post a Comment